Pages

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

-Mr Mastro, -The Bible clearly shows that the Catholic Church in Revelations is the 'Whore of Babylon,.' -

Dear protestants,..

This is a quick note especially to those who try to get me
to ‘debate’ with you. This includes but
is not limited to, Anglicans, (all breeds) Presbytarians, Lutherans, Baptists,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, SSPXers, Sedevacantists, Mormons, Methodists, Evangelicals
and Pentecostals. Oh yes, I’m sure I’ve
forgotten a couple of groups in there, but I think you get my point. This is not a blog post, instead I’m writing
a note. This is not Optimusmastro,
instead, just plain old Marco Mastromonaco.
It would seem that you guys enjoy opening up discussions but are in fact
closed off to someone else’s opinion especially when it concerns matters of
Faith. My conclusion? Fideism!
To engage a Catholic in dialogue or discussion, you must essentially be
somewhat prepared for a reasonable defense.
Therein lies the crux of the issue, ‘Reason.’ As Catholics, I can assure you that our Faith
is not blind, however can the same be said for you?

You see, we can logically articulate our Faith, and in using
our intellective faculties are by no means afraid of science. Science will show you the ‘How,’ however
Theology will tell you the ‘Why?’ From
here on out, it is useless to debate someone who is closed off, unless;

-Pick a
topic (ie Concept of God,..) and stick to it

- Give equal time to all parties

3 - Be judged in a debators’ arena, with FACTS! (This includes, Church history, Church Fathers, and logic,..that being said, proving God by the Bible and the Bible by God is not valid reasoning.)

The idea or notion that the
Liturgy is the central sticking issue between the Society of St Pius X and Rome is a tired notion. It is also a notion that has no weight. While the liturgy during the time of the Council
was called into question, (Ottavianni intervention) there still did remain some
Theological barriers which prevented the SSPX from full reconciliation. (Though the schism became formal in 1988, When
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated Bishops without Papal approval..) in reality,
it had already occurred.) For this
particular blog post, we will look toward the Ecumenical movement and
specifically the idea of Religious Freedom.

As always, we will contextualize
the situation. The Second Vatican Council,
in many ways the cataclyst that launched into question a whole generation with
regards to hermeneutics. The Council in
many respects broke with a certain rational for even holding a Council, as
there was never any doctrinal dispute which necessitated a Council for
correction. On the issue of Liturgical
Reform, this was undertaken way before VII was even a thought, in order to
correct the Tridentine Rite and purge it from its own abuses. At the time of Trent, the Real Presence was
called into question by protestants, so Altars were created with a Tabernacle
glued onto it. This turned into a
‘Jesus’ refrigerator, and Adoration was not seen as a continuation of the same
Sacrifice, but in certain places, became its own animal. In a Liturgical setting, the Altar is to
remain the focal point of the Liturgy, yet with a Tabernacle on it, it can
become secondary, to the Real Presence in reserve. Pope
John 23rd in good faith, wanted an aggiornamento, an updating to
present the Faith to a world that was changing.
The modern world, saw a sexual revolution, feminism and an all out
assault on the establishment. This of
course produced breakaway groups, sedevacantists (No Pope, the CMRI, SSPV),
Conclavists (A true Pope somewhere, usually elected by the person’s family), and
of course, the SSPX, (Who believe that the Pope is valid, but may be a materiel
heretic, but not a formal one…)

For Ecumenism, and inter-faith
dialogue, the SSPX sees this as an invitation to Universalism, something that
has been further clarified by both Bishop’s conferences, the 1994 Catechism and
‘Dominus Iesus’ (Document from the congregation for the doctrine of the
Faith.) The fact remains that we need to
know the ideology of the other, before we can present the Gospel in its
fullness. So by hierchalizing different religions
became necessary by asking how much Truth they possess? The Orthodox are usually ranked first and
seen as a ‘Sister Church.’ (On this
issue alone, Ecumenism has worked, as in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch
Athanagoras revoked the excommunications from 1054. Both sides recognize valid orders, and the
Orthodox understand the primacy of Rome.
There still remains a sticking point with regards as to how to exercise
this ministry.) Up next are the
protestant traditions,..all ranked according to how much truth they
contain. (In this regard, ‘High’
Anglicanism is significantly closer than the United Church..). Then we view the other monotheistic religions
followed by the pantheistic ones.

The fact of the matter is that
the question of Liturgy remains a smokescreen.
Pope John Paul II offered them a personal prelature back in the 1980s
which they rejected, even after they had a signature. Their real problem remains the problem of
Religious Freedom and how to properly understand it. ‘Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate attempted to show
that God in His infinite Mercy desires all men to be saved. In doing so, the Church does not promote
universalism, but through dialogue and discourse attempts to show that the
human person is called to freedom. The
freedom to accept or reject, the Gospel of Christ, being proposed and never
imposed. ‘Freedom’ is doing what you
ought, not what you want! That is
license. Has this position changed from
the Church reaffirming Herself as the one True Church changed? Absolutely not! However in reaction to the Father Feeney issue
from the 1940s, an amplification was needed.
This position is also closer to Aquinas thought. The Church returning to its sources sought to
recognize what is true and holy in other religions in order to advance and
further engage people. The Church must
separate a contextual situation from its actuality. The SSPX plain and simple, look to the
Syllabus of Pius IX as ‘infallible’(which it is not, as to read it
literalistically would not have me typing on a computer, as that would be an
error... Syllabus ) while forgetting the context in which it was promulgated! So there is an issue within their Theology
whereby even Jesus would be called into question when He meets the Samaritain
woman or still St Paul in Acts would be called into question by the SSPX as to
how he evangelized in Athens. I think
the above video by Bishop Fellay of the SSPX shows that it has nothing to do with
Vatican II.

A few clarifications; Archbishop Lefebvre never rejected Vatican II
or the Reform of the Mass. What he
rejected was the Rite put in place in 1969 by Paul VI,.. (which it can be
argued deviated from Sancrosanctum Concilium).
Secondly Pope John Paul II had them already set up as a prelature which
Lefebvre rejected. The next SSPX post
will examine the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, its context when it was written, (the
end of Christian philosophy,) and staving off the birth of so-called
enlightenment thought giving way to modernism.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Once again, I, Fr Jason Piper will use Cybertronian ears, eyes and speech, to say what I got to say,..Optimusmastro will return a little later,..

Yesterday (January 20th) marked my one year anniversary of ordination to the priesthood. I have been reflecting on the past year, and the following is one of many points about the priesthood that have been in mind:

Back in September, eight months since I had been ordained, I was told something to the effect of; "people are saying you've changed since you became a priest... its like you think you have a license to do whatever you want." My response was basically... yes, I have changed. No, I don't think I can do whatever I want.

Regarding "you've changed since you became a priest"When someone is ordained, they do in fact change. There is an ontological change, in which there is a change in one's very being; priesthood isn't something you do, it is who you are... I am priest (through Jesus the one Priest). When I was ordained, I changed, my very being changed by the very ordination (Sacrament of Holy Orders).

Also, when one is ordained, they receive a new office, or charge. They are now a priest (ontological change), and are therefore are to act within that role, fulfill that role, function within that role. After I was ordained, I changed my mode of action to conform with my new reality.

Regarding "a license to do whatever you want."When one is ordained, he is responsible for what he does, within the role he is to fulfill, based on his new reality "I am priest." Now, lets say there are liturgical abuses going on, for example; on Sundays the psalm is replaced by a poem (contemporary writings speak to our current reality), and the Old Testament reading is removed (it makes mass too long). Before ordination the seminarian may express his dislike for such practices, and really that is all he can do. It is the priest who has been entrusted with the sacred duty of transmitting what the Church has put forth. The seminarian is placed with the priest to learn from him, not tell the priest what to do. If the priest wants to persist in error, there is nothing a seminarian can do about it. That priest will answer to Jesus on the day of his judgment.

However, once that seminarian becomes a priest, and he himself has been entrusted the sacred responsibility of faithfully transmitting what the Church puts forth; he can, and therefore should refuse to allow the liturgical abuse to go on when he is the presider. Far from thinking 'now that I'm a priest I'll do whatever I want' (or have the license to do whatever one wants), the attitude should be; now that I'm a priest I will do what I should do, what I was entrusted to do. He will also answer to Jesus on the day of his judgment.

On Authority:If someone does not change when they become a priest, there is something seriously wrong. I'm not talking about a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type of change. Or like He-Man “I’VE GOT THE POWER!!!” Rather, a change in which one assumes the serious responsibilities they were entrusted with; by God through their bishop who represents the Church.

Lastly, priests are trained to be leaders. He is like a young buck raring to go... it is only normal that a newly ordained takes charge and leads. Naturally, within the role he has been given. If he is under a direct superior who is the pastor of a community he is named to; the newly ordained is to assist the pastor who leads. The newly ordained leads under the leadership of the pastor. Just as the pastor leads under the leadership of his bishop. And the bishop leads in union with his brother bishops with the pope as their head. The pope, surrounded by the bishops, leads under the authority of Jesus Christ. We, all the baptized, make up Jesus' Church, and are subject to His supreme authority. The chain of command begins and ends with Jesus. Anything that is not of Jesus, and what He has given under His authority expressed through the Magisterium, is not binding on one's promise of obedience and respect.

Final Thoughts:Any authority I have, is based on Jesus' authority. If I refuse to do something, like grant general absolution to those who come for monthly parish penitential services, or enforce something like only using unleavened bread for the Eucharist; it is not because I think I have the license to do whatever I want... it is because I know I do not have the license to do whatever I want.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

This reflection was written a while back as an article for a newspaper,..please excuse the spelling and grammatical errors,..For those asking, I will be publishing several posts this week, one of them being a continuation of the SSPX issues,..I wish all of my readers a very happy, Holy and healthy 2013! Please continue to sustain me in prayer,..

The context of social philosophy can provide an individual
with a canvas whereby people can’t paint with different lenses. These ‘lenses’ are the visuals with which to
look out past the obvious, the sensual and the real and straight into the
subjective. Truth, the statement or idea
that Pilate questioned Jesus upon relates in so far as much as to theology as
it does to every other facet that life can give us. To define it, in a very Aristotelico Thomist
mindset would be ‘that which is in accord with the nature of the thing. For this particular reflection, we will attempt a
look at population control under the radar/microscope as well as post context
of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, its reception after the Council and finally
break down its rejection and thus its consequences from both a moral position
as well as an economic one. The essay
will attempt to be as objective as possible while at the same time showing
certain evidences and trends that are now marking the decline of western
(Occidental) Civilization while awaiting two new potential ideologies looming
and poised to replace the post Christian ‘West.’ One being of rampant secularism, while the
other being Islam. This essay will also
attempt to connect the ‘dots’ and show a ‘cause and effect’ chain linking the
sexual revolution, contraception, abortion and population demographics, a
roadmap to show and articulate how western civilization got from ‘there’ to
‘here,’ being our current political mindset and so-called ‘common good’
approach.

1.1End of the Era

The Legalization
of Christianity, (Edict of Milan), and fall of the Roman Empire paved the way
for a new and bold way of life.
Christianity was trumpeted as a backdrop to institute political
structures, education (confessional schools) and ethical norms, and through its
canon law built up civilization for most of Europe and the Americas. By the time Martin Luther nailed his
ninety-five theses to the Cathedral door at Wittenberg Germany, a subsequent
downward spiral was put in motion and is culminating with what we see today. The subjectivist mindset replacing the
objective, births a selfish culture, but one that is ultimately headed for
self-destruction with regards to having no exterior concern or consequence. From the Social Philosophy perspective, the
common good gives way for the individual ‘good’ thus in this light, we can
begin to see society go backwards. Can
it be safe to assume a connect the ‘dots’ approach and thus attempt to reason
our way through the false selfish man centered ideology all the way through to
where we now find ourselves? Feminism,
the sexual revolution and a post Vatican II euphoria (ironically having nothing
to do with Vatican II itself) usurping man’s means to an end and making it the
end itself. In between Civilizations, a
sociological no man’s land whereby the post Christian European identity, (Yes
even in the Americas) has now positioned itself for a new civilization to take
over and assert itself. Gone is canon
law, while our society cannot maintain a culture of secularism, all the while
Islam is on the rise.

2. Humane Vitae;

In the nineteen
sixties, specifically July of 1968, in the wake of both the sexual revolution
(secular) and the aftermath of the second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI issued
an encyclical to clear up any misunderstanding or questions with regards to
Catholic moral teaching as it pertains to artificial means of contraception. Catholic moral teaching reserves the sexual
act as an act between a man and a woman inside marriage for the propagation of
children and of unity. The Pope, despite
internal pressure and amidst a growing secular whirlwind, stood up to re affirm
the Church’s clear teaching and thus, Her adhesion to the Natural Law, not to
mention conventional cultural growth and progress. At the time, many Catholics saw this
reaffirmation by Paul VI as a sociological step backwards as theAnglican
Communion had already decided that contraception was acceptable as a practice,
not being able to distinguish the reality that a marriage breakdown was also at
stake, and an acceptance of contraception would only exacerbate the issue at
large. While to be fair, the first real
signs of dissent occurred way before Vatican II, the aftermath (aftershock) of
post counciliar foolhardiness was used as the Launchpad, and sadly most
Canadian Catholics, especially in following the Winnipeg Statement followed
their ‘consciences’ to the current crisis that we now face. The Winnepeg Statement being the all too
familiar intervention by Canadian Bishops publically disobeying Rome. A catastrophic earthquake in light of the
sexual revolution was now inevitable yet no one foresaw it, because everyone
was too caught up in the idea of ‘free’ love.
‘Free?’ Nothing is free, and sex
divorced from authentic love is but legalized lust.

Pope Paul VI, no
doubt seeing that society was (and elements inside the Church) was akin to a
wild horse sought to reign in the dissidents and heterodox thinkers advancing
this modernist approach whereby ‘if it feels good and doesn’t harm anybody,
then why not?’

2.1 Contraception.

Properly speaking
the act of contraception means to willfully interfere and disrupt through
natural means, a normal course of action.
In this case it happens to be pregnancy.
The most common and popular form has been the ‘Pill’a medication brought
forth in order to de stabilize a woman’s hormonal cycle thus not allowing her
to conceive through normal means. She
would become master of her own particular nature and leave the natural law out
of the question. We were told that we
were made in God’s image, yet with the inception of the pill, we now dictate
the terms to God. Along with the pill,
the condom industry grew and gave birth to a generational gap of open sex
whereby it was considered normal for anyone to fulfill their own instinct
without regard for consequence.
Unfortunately for the contraception industry, it didn’t always work, and
thus another ‘solution’ had to be found.

2.3 Abortion

Following suit
upon a breakdown of thought, and morals comes the ultimate act of selfishness
rooted in senseless killing, all in the name of a ‘common’ good. Planned Parenthood in the 1960s financed a
marketing campaign designed at pushing the contraceptive agenda because it
would lessen the number of abortions which in their mindset was killing. Fast forward 35 years later, and the ‘baby’
name in their pamphlet has been changed to ‘fetus’ thereby attempting an
abstract vision of something concretely alive, which can be demonstrated not
only by Faith, but also within a common sense/ Natural Law framework. Gone was the argument of whether or not a
person is a person when they are in ‘being’ essentially in potential and
subject to change. The only thing which
changed was our vocabulary which in following the Roe V Wade abortion ruling in
the United States, the fetus became a clump of cells and property of the
woman’s body, thus enshrining it as a jewel within feminist causes. So the marketing strategy as a result, in
order to keep the industry (contraception) rolling, because after all it is
lucrative, will trumpet the women’s ‘rights’ card advancing a so-called ‘common
good’ all the while masking an intrinsic moral evil.

3. Economics

According to the
law of supply and demand, along with cultural statistics, it has been
demonstratively shown that in order for a culture to prosper, or at the very
least sustain itself, a birthrate of 2.1 per family is essential. One child to replace the mother, the other
child to replace the father, while the ‘.1’ falls within the statistical anomaly
of the case of accidental deaths or handicaps with the children. The western model has not been following this
model and to use Germany as an example (figures stem from 2006) we can show
that Germany’s birthrate is staggering, eye-opening 1.3!. The mathematics which
follow are only a logical projection all the while showing the inter-relational
dimension between the breakdown contraception, abortion and the breakdown of
the family culminating with an economic disaster. Essentially when the current generation wants
to retire and benefit from pensions, they will not have enough money subsidized
by the next generation of workers because essentially there are so few of
them. This then effects the supply and
demand chain. Essentially contraception
is a deception, a perversion of an act attempting to capitalize on man’s carnal
desires. Sex is a natural impulse,
however it is also a disordered natural impulse. This is not a theological affirmation, but a
realistic one, whereby our society needs to recognize. The parameters of marriage provide the
necessary natural society whereby a free total giving of oneself can take place
between one man and one woman. The
result being the openness to new life, shows that the couple is not closed off
while celebrating their complimentarity.
Should children, the natural fruit of this union come into being, they
can be educated inside the marriage parameter which has by now transformed
itself into a family. Any
deconstructionist vision of this ultimately leads to chaos.

It needs to be noted that along with contraception being the
norm, an entirely familiar set of words have now been hijacked and are subject
to reinterpretation along the lines of what the majority ‘feel’ is true, and
not what necessarily is true.

4 Conclusion

Within the
Christian, specifically Catholic mindset, the sexual act represents man’s
co-operation with the Divine in the very act of creation. We, as human beings and out of love are
invited to participate within this notion.
God, the personification of Love Himself, exists as an eternal exchange
of relationships. God who is at once the
Lover, the Beloved and the act of Loving always is in a constant free giving of
oneself. The same is true for human
beings. The sexual act is one of
constant giving. When we separate ourselves
from this mindset, we enter into a constant taking and thus turn the act inward
on itself. An addiction can thus be
formed through chemical cocktails in the brain secreting epinephrine and
dopamine secreting from our pituitary gland in the brain. An example can be shown of an individual
addicted to food, how they eat to stimulate the taste buds, instead of as a
primary reason for sustaining oneself in ‘being.’ The result is heart disease, fat and high
blood pressure/cholesterol. Within the
sexual context, the end result of the addiction is the population decrease, along
with sexually transmitted diseases, however because of the chemicals in the
brain, a link can also be shown to equate rape cases whereby people cannot
control themselves and are past the ‘point’ of no return. The passion thus rules the 'Will' thereby rendering it no longer free.

This reflection at best tried to show a ‘connect
the dots’ approach to an issue all too familiar to 21st ears and
sensibilities. Every election especially
in the United States sees a resurgence of people attempting a full out return
to an authentic common good and the establishment of a potential authentic global ethic.
As has been demonstrated, our contraceptive generation did not give way
to ‘free’ sex as was its original intent.
Instead it birthed an entirely different mindset and has set into motion
the impending collapse (irreversible) of western civilization. The results have seen an increase in
abortions, a complete breakdown of the family along with a redefinition of
traditional marriage, an emasculated masculinity devoid of any semblance
regarding traditional roles. Finally an
economic tsunami and market crash brought on by a lack of population ready and
able to work so that older people can retire and sustain what our society has
always sought to maintain, a culture of growth and prosperity, instead, we are
saddled with trauma and potential extinction.
In order for a society to function, it needs people to work, this is
what feeds the economy, the age old adage of supply and demand. The contraception deception at its core is
the cause of our current economic breakdown and as has been already stated will
usher in a new reality of civilization, especially considering to keep our
heads above water we need immigrants and only one religion is populating
itself.